Biowizard: Richard, great review, but as per my earlier comment - please update with at least some reference/comparison to the OM-D E-M1 "flagship". It seems that the E-M5 II surpasses the E-M1 with several of its new features, leaving the E-M10 in the dust, and so considerably less relevant to this article.

If nothing else, please could you at least extend the table on Page 1 (Introduction) to include an E-M1 column, and put in a visual comparison of the E-M1 vs E-M5 II bodies, which you say are of considerably different sizes?

It would be greatly appreciated by this E-M1 owner (and hopefully, others) ! :-)

Thanks,

Brian

Hi Brian

Now the Canon launches are out of the way I have some time to go back and look at the E-M5 II piece.

That table won't really support another column without everything being crushed up, so I'll see what I can do about it.

Biowizard: Why no direct comparison in this review with the "flagship" OM-D E-M1?

Brian

I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that most people looking at this camera would be put off by the bigger size of the E-M1 and would mainly want to know how it compares to the visually similar but less expensive E-M10.

When it comes to testing it, we'll certainly have a look at how the autofocus performance stacks up next to the E-M1.

Sirandar: Comparing the standard res Mark II images to the original OMD E5, they just don't look as sharp or crisp with the II. Am I missing something? Look at the green feathers...

Also, the addition of a articulating display is very welcome, but can you turn the display to face inwards when not using it? Since even with a screen protector the display tends to rub against stuff and take damage, turning it in would make shooting a much more carefree experience.

My old Pana FZ30 had this feature and I took advantage of it a lot as I tend to use the viewfinder.

@ThePhilips - there is no reason why because there is no basis on which it would make sense for us to sabotage a camera. It's in nobody's interest at all.

I'm not arguing that the 45mm is the best possible lens but it is a very good lens. The test scene has to in some way relate to the real world and this isn't achieved by cherry-picking the very best possible lens, regardless of how likely it is that anyone is to use it. By the same logic, we don't use the Zeiss Otus lenses on full frame Canons or Nikons.

Whichever lens we use, there will be people who decide that we *have* to use lens X or Y. It's disingenuous to suggest that not doing what you want means that anything is being sabotaged.

I repeat we are looking at why these shots are less sharp than they should be.

Sirandar: Comparing the standard res Mark II images to the original OMD E5, they just don't look as sharp or crisp with the II. Am I missing something? Look at the green feathers...

Also, the addition of a articulating display is very welcome, but can you turn the display to face inwards when not using it? Since even with a screen protector the display tends to rub against stuff and take damage, turning it in would make shooting a much more carefree experience.

My old Pana FZ30 had this feature and I took advantage of it a lot as I tend to use the viewfinder.

Why on Earth would we try to sabotage a camera?

We've said we're looking into why these shots don't appear as sharp as they could.

"However, because there's some overlap between the original set of four pixels and the set of offset pixels, the system doesn't quite yield four times the original resolution (64MP). Instead, the camera compensates for this overlap and outputs a 40MP file. These files are captured both as 40MP JPEGs and as vast, 100MB Raw files."

I believe there is indeed a 64MP output mode, but only with an (PS plug-in unavailable for now) externally processed RAW file.

According to Pekka Potka: "64 MP is 9216 x 6912 pixels, or 192 MB when opened in Photoshop. The size of .ORF file is roughly 100 MB"

Please see Pekka's, or Imaging Resource's reviews.

There is an Olympus plugin. As explained in the text, we've used a beta of Adobe Camera Raw with preliminary support.

brycesteiner: Is there an error with the USB? Only version 2? That cannot be right. It is nice that is has a 64 MP output in RAW.

@brycesteiner - don't get me wrong, I can see the appeal, but it seems most manufacturers are seeing these benefits as minor, compared to whatever costs are involved in integrating USB 3.0 connections.

It's interested how much slower the move across to USB 3.0 on everything except the highest-end models (where tethering is more likely) is proving. It certainly seems much slower than the adoption of USB 2.0 was, from my shaky recollection.

stevez: The only thing, and I really mean the only thing I don't like about this camera is the removal of the accessory port which means I can no longer use my previously supplied pop up flash, fiber optic macro light, accessory viewfinder or accessory microphone.

This has a viewfinder, better pop-up flash and a built-in mic socket, so it's probably worth selling several of those items anyway, isn't it?

"However, because there's some overlap between the original set of four pixels and the set of offset pixels, the system doesn't quite yield four times the original resolution (64MP). Instead, the camera compensates for this overlap and outputs a 40MP file. These files are captured both as 40MP JPEGs and as vast, 100MB Raw files."

I believe there is indeed a 64MP output mode, but only with an (PS plug-in unavailable for now) externally processed RAW file.

According to Pekka Potka: "64 MP is 9216 x 6912 pixels, or 192 MB when opened in Photoshop. The size of .ORF file is roughly 100 MB"

Please see Pekka's, or Imaging Resource's reviews.

Yes the camera outputs 64MP Raws but that doesn't mean it has 64MP worth of detail in the files - that's why Olympus outputs the JPEGs at 40MP.

larryr: If I understand the article correctly, total light gives an idea of the quality of the images so a camera with a smaller sensor might do as well or perhaps better than one with a larger sensor IF it has a faster lens (AND using a slower shutter speed is not an option, forcing the camera with the larger sensor to use a higher ISO)? Pixel density is not important? This allows one to understand the relative importance of lens speed vs. sensor size (in terms of total light and IQ).

This changes the common wisdom that a small sensor camera performs pretty well in daylight but not so well in low light? But the daylight situation has not changed, and the low light situation has improved only where the camera has a faster lens and a slower shutter speed can not be used (allowing it to use a lower ISO?)

On cameras with smaller sensors does the adjusted aperture refer to the actual size of the aperture? In the cropped example the adjusted aperture does refer to the used part of the aperture.

Nobody is claiming that the sensor size has any impact on the light intensity.

However, light intensity is a measure of the amount of light cast on a particular area and sensor size gives an understanding of the area that you are sampling.

I repeat: an 25mm f/15.6 lens would clearly allow lower light intensity to the sensor than a 4.5mm f/2.8 but the difference between the two is proportionate to the different areas over which the light is being captured.

So: If both sensors have the same number of pixels, then each pixel receives the same number of photons during the same exposure time. The larger sensor experiences less light per-unit-area but has larger pixels.

Pixel size plays a surprisingly small role in image quality (if you resample images to a common size). Sensor size plays a much larger role because it determines how much light you can potentially capture (because it defines how much area you have measuring any given intensity).